Before posting a message here please consider if this is the correct venue. If you wish to discuss me (SSSB), my edits (read the second paragragh if you have an issue with an edit request I implemented) or you wish to bring my attention to a certain matter, this is the correct venue (there are other cases where this is the correct venue).

However, this is not the correct venue to make edit requests. These requests should be made on the talk page of the page which you would like to be edited, if you request an edit on a page in which I have an interest it will appear on my watchlist, I will see it. If you have a problem with an edit request I implemented, please consider if it might not be better to respond where the edit request was made (you may use {{ping}} or {{u}} to attract my attention). Thank you,
SSSB (talk)

The first Brazilian Grand Prix to be counted in the world championship was in 1973. Read the article about the 1973 race, please. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MCRainbowSupernova8196: I know that, but The race was the twentieth and penultimate round of the 2019 Formula One World Championship and marked the 48th running of the Brazilian Grand Prix and the 47th time that the race has been run as a World Championship event since the inaugural event in 1973. makes it sound like the first Brazilian Grand Prix was 1973, but it was 1972. (1972 Brazilian Grand Prix)
SSSB (talk) 06:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 1972 Brazilian Grand Prix was a NON-CHAMPIONSHIP RACE. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MCRainbowSupernova8196: so? The event is the Brazilian Grand Prix. "Inaugural event" therefore refers to "Inaugural Brazilian Grand Prix". The inaguaral/first Brazilian Grand Prix was in 1972, the fact it wasn't a championship event is irrelevant when determining the inagural event. The first Brazilian Grand Prix was 1972, the change you keep making says that the first Brazilian Grand Prix was 1973.
SSSB (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-championship races don't count. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-championship races don't count towards the actual season and standings. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the 1908 American Grand Prize was the first Grand Prix to be held in the US doesn't mean it was the first United States Grand Prix. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There ya go. I fixed it so now you can't be mad. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't mad. But the text was wrong. The inagural US Grand Prix was in 1908, as the American Grand Prize was the original name of the American Grand Prix. Non-Championship races do count in terms of inaguaral, that is what all the infoboxes do.
SSSB (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait the article said the 47th time the race had been run as a Championship event, not as an event overall. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So this whole argument is stupid. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No they don't count as inaugural because they don't count as real championship races. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are going in circles, there is no point in continuing this.
SSSB (talk) 18:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if we're being technical, the first Brazilian Grand Prix was held in the early 1940s at either Interlagos or Gávea. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MCRainbowSupernova8196: if you can find a source add it to the article.
SSSB (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil held Grands Prix during the early parts of WWII at Interlagos and Gavea. Interlagos. Says it in the Brazilian Grand Prix article. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore the error at the end there. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 19:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil held Grands Prix doesn't make them Brazilian Grands Prix. The Styrian Grand Prix is in Austria, but they aren't considered Austrian Grands Prix.
SSSB (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much information on those races so who knows? They could've been called the Brazilian Grand Prix. Also what about the American Grand Prize? It's not called the United States Grand Prix but it's considered the United States Grand Prix. MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's because American and United States are synonymous in this context, as are prize and prix.
SSSB (talk) 07:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also the Red Bull Ring, where the Austrian Grand Prix is held, is in Styria MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).

Administrator changes

Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless

Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)

Guideline and policy news

• Consensus was reached to deprecate Wikipedia:Editor assistance.
• Following a Request for Comment the Book namespace was deprecated.

Technical news

• Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.

Arbitration

• After a Clarification request, the Arbitration Committee modified Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case. This means sourcing expectations are a discretionary sanction instead of being present on all articles. It also details using the talk page or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to discuss disputed sources.

https://gpracingstats.com/drivers/rubens-barrichello/wins— Preceding unsigned comment added by MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MCRainbowSupernova8196: it is your responsibility, not mine, to provide references for your contributions. See WP:BURDEN. This has already been pointed out to you (Special:Diff/1025494344).
SSSB (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please post my comment of 13:57 (which you removed at 14:17) to the place you think it should go. This allows others to chime in. Alternatively, respond here (I'll be watching both pages). If you don't respond that will indicate you're dropping your claim that the Daily Beast analysis is unsourced. 31.124.153.250 (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done please make future requests at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for edits to a protected page. Continueing to make edit requests here may be ignored.
SSSB (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the term "original research". Searching the literature for sources is "original research" in the sense that nobody has done it before, but in Wikipedia terms it means no more than that the fact is unsupported by a reliable source other than yourself (although if you are an expert you are also a reliable source). The article should say that, while some sources interpreted the statement as meaning that the Wednesday wedding was not valid, Meghan and Harry have not stated that it was not valid, and if that was their belief they would have said so explicitly. Rebecca's paper relates to royal marriages generally. She makes the point that royal marriages are governed by canon law. I then said that since this marriage is a royal marriage it is governed by canon law. I did not source the statement that this marriage is a royal marriage but can do so if you wish. I suggest the following wording:

A follow-up response came on 22 March when a spokesperson confirmed to the Daily Beast that "the couple exchanged personal vows a few days before their official/legal wedding on May 19." She could have said "the couple exchanged personal vows a few days before their official and/or legal wedding on 19 May". This is the same as saying that the second ceremony was either the "official" one or the "legal" one or both.^[1][2].While some sources interpreted the statement as meaning that the Wednesday wedding was not valid, Meghan and Harry have not stated that it was not valid, and if that was their belief they would have said so explicitly.

The discussion is at Talk:Oprah with Meghan and Harry, not here. Please keep the discussion in one location. If you can't edit that page, make a request at WP:RPP.
SSSB (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The results from Wikipedia are taken from F1 directly and the stats are correct. 2012 United States GP was the last time Mercedes finished both cars without points. I don't know why you keep deleting this as this is correct. Consider it an original research or something. You can see from all results that it is correct; changing this is not necessary. Formula 1 itself and other sources like Racing-Statistics.com put this as the last finish without points.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14ba:a301:296d::1 (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I keep deleting it because it is not cited. Using Wikipedia as a source is not acceptable, as anyone can chnage it. If is verified by Racing-Statistics.com, cite Racing-Statistics.com. The onus for adding verfibility is on the person (re)adding the content, not me.
SSSB (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're not getting my point. Do you think I should cite every single race that has happened in Formula One? There isn't a news article reporting on it. It is still true. I'm not citing wikipedia as a source. Just giving your head an example that it is true and verifiable with a very easy look at Formula One statistics. It doesn't change the thing that it is a fact. If this race is the first race a team doesn't finish in points for over 8 years I think it's pretty significant. Stop deleting the edit as it is not unsourced, it is literally a statistic anyone can look up. You're not being reasonable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14ba:a301:296d::1 (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is likely to be challenged, (as it is a long time) and therefore it requires a source (see WP:V). You do not need to cite every sentence, but content should be easily verifiable (externally, as anyone can change Wikipedia). As an aside, if news sources aren't reporting on it, then that indicates it isn't noteworthy, another reason why stats need citations. Something being true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion on a general encyclopedia.
SSSB (talk) 08:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And when I googled "last time Mercedes finished with no points F1", I could not find a reference to that GP, meaning it is not easily verifiable (a condition for something to be without a citation).
SSSB (talk) 12:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

News outlets finally reported on it, I'll add it now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BA:A301:3614:0:0:0:1 (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest edit summary is somewhat disingenuous. The points you made were rebutted in the edit of 11:01, 19 June 2021 and you have not issued a rejoinder. 31.124.153.250 (talk) 10:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message on my talk page, numerous sources have been provided for the added content. Which part of the content do you claim is unsourced? 31.124.153.250 (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That Welby stood down. No source.

There is no edit corrosponding to 11:09, 19 June 2021 at Talk:Oprah with Meghan and Harry.
SSSB (talk) 11:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A link for you; Sealioning. It's up to you how you want to spend your own time, of course. But as long as you continue to entertain this editor, they will continue to engage you in endless discussion about Wikipedia policy that is not going to change just because they wish to redefine what Original Research means. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks
SSSB (talk) 11:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The f**t of the sealion is the most powerful of all animals - guaranteed to clear the enclosure of all visitors to the zoo. Would you like to quote the section of policy which states that a sourced fact may not be included in Wikipedia because editors have to do research to uncover it? Welby announced that he was going to stand down. Having done some googling I have found a number of sources - you will no doubt claim that the effort I invested in this constitutes "original research":

^[1]

^[2]

^[3]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.124.153.250 (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The tweet fails WP:TWEET and WP:SPS. To say that he is going on sabatical is not WP:OR. Any claim that this is relevant to the Harry and Maghan situation is WP:OR.
SSSB (talk)13:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)How so? The article makes the point that Welby is unlikely to be commenting further. The fact that he has left his office is very relevant to that prognostication. 31.124.153.250 (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]